In defense of CKA users, it's not just CKA. Memory serves, they've also gotten solid arguments from your "other" political forums as well... one which is dead where people still disagreed with you (and where you recently paraphrased someone else's comments poorly and well out of context), one on a more liberally driven site, rabble.ca, and the
final one is on Sooey's about the current thread here on CKA (where some particular folks' reservations are left out even though you mention CKA specifically), where people are disagreeing with you as well. The real question is, "why are people disagreeing with my immigrant and unemployment ideas across the internet from all political and ideological persuasions?"
Bruce, one of those papers I gave you, along with three or four of my comments, mentioned the fact that there was recorded increase in low income families... in inner Toronto. If you have the facts to back this up for the entire GTA and surrounding region, please do provide these figures.
That's one hell of a torpedo. It didn't cause unemployment to spiral endlessly into the double digits for the past twenty years, and we ended up with more jobs in the end and more people working. You can't forget the entirety of my posts in an attempt to focus on one or two things, Bruce, all of this stuff is connected. We wouldn't have as many people working in Toronto at the end of the 1990s, when there was over 250,000 more people working with an unemployment population which was lower than it was from 1993-1996. We wouldn't have had a million more people working in Toronto today if not for that, we'd have a lot less working.
It matters that Alberta has been rising in prominence over the past few years. It matters that things have not remained stagnant in Ontario either. We now have a provinicial Ontario government which is entirely different from the previous one, coming around in 2003. The dozens of different changes enacted by the McGuinty government did not play a role? Nor the dozens of changes which occurred under Harris? People blame both of them for some of the problems, but neither of them played a role?
The Fraser Insitute is a libertarian, right leaning group. However, should we choose to ignore that potential for bias and the fact that it contradicts a large portion of academic and independant information otherwise in regards to immigration, you'd still have to face the fact that the Fraser Institute supports abolishing the minimum wage... which is directly contradictory to your own platforms regarding wage controls... which are also contradicted by the Fraser Institute. That they follow the more mainstream viewpoint I have presented you now in three threads means that you are selectively quoting them rather than taking into view the entire breadth of their available literature on the topic.
Also, the Fraser institute did not say what you said they did anyways. I have told you in the past, in the case of the list of stats and the charity website, not to make claims which are not present in the works you are citing. Given your recent (errant) claims about me using misinformation when you failed to provide me actual refereces for your assertions, I would hope you'd take more time to make sure your response was valid. The Fraser institute says that immigrants can find jobs, but not jobs they are potentially qualified for at the top end. The report also indicated the same using the "work" term. You can see the actual paper
here as a free download. In other words, not only do I have concerns (echoed by experts in the field) about your source, but the source itself does not state what you said it does. Feel free to do a ctrl+f search for the terms job and work to see them in context. From the very beginning, however, it is clear that the term is used interchangeably.
I have provided you with a series of sources (no, it was not just "Donald McDonald's information"). Would you like me to go through every single one of these threads and list my sources for you again? They are comprehensive, from dozens of sources, which is a little more comprehensive and often more recent than your singular report from a singular author from 2005 from a potentially biased source which disagrees with the majority of what you've been saying on other topics anyways.
I asked you before to quit with the flamebaiting, and you have not. I also have asked you to stop announcing untrue things about what I am saying, and you have not stopped. This thread had the opportunity to end nicely, with you getting the final note which you could have presented in a way similar to mine -- instead, you insisted on insulting me, mislabeling what I said, misconstruing the facts of a report, and ignoring a large portion of my previous posts.
The economic center of Canada is shifting to a spot where Alberta has a bigger share. Toronto grew by a larger amount but is beginning with a larger base. A bigger and bigger share of the economic power in the nation is shifting west. I did not say Calgary is the center, but I also did not attempt to try and confirm this on a singular statistic... like yourself. Calgary added more than 25% to it's population in that period. Toronto, by comparison, added around 17% of it's population during that period. Growth in Calgary's GDP outstripped growth in Toronto, as well as it's GDP/capita. A shift of power away from Toronto does not mean I said the West was the new center. I would also say that Toronto is doing well in spite of the recession.
Forum Addict 
